Just because someone doesn't believe theMormon Church is true, doesn't mean they are "anti". It has almost become a knee-jerk defense by many in the Church to accuse non-believers of being "anti". And why are people so hung up on the notion that one of the Churches has to be true? It isn't a freaking contest.

I have a few friends and even family members who have argued this same point, that structured religion (not just Mormonism, though those to whom I am referring to were all once Mormon) hinders or impedes a personal search for truth and spirituality.

In jest I have thought the same thing, in fact today in Gospel Doctrine when the teacher was woefully unprepared and lacking of knowledge in teaching the Creation. This was the first time I have attended GD in over a year and I think the primary class I was teaching could have provided a more meaningful, profound and insightful discussion.

But in speaking with each of these people about this to some extent it appears most evident that there is a structure or religious tenet that doesn't actually impede their personal spirituality but rather a stricture of sorts that they cannot fully comply with, i.e. tithing, WOW, LOC, etc. Obscure and problematic doctrines often coupled with the flaws and faults of the Church and its leaders whose errors are amplified to levels of extremity become an easy out. I realized I am generalizing and being presumptive here, but a few have actually admitted to me as such. And in a few instances these individuals have seperated themselves from the Church because of hardship and no longer acknowledging God or a Redeemer, though I think ultimately they still do believe but find it easier to choose to say they don't than reconcile everything bad that has everything happened to them with the loving and benevolent Father in Heaven they have always believed in or taught exists.

My point is, I guess I do not understand how a structured religion (any, not just Mormonism) actually impedes personal spiritual devlopment. I have never, in my own experience, felt that the Church was restrictive in this. I was never taught to lean on the testimonies of others. I have never felt that I couldn't receive my own personal witness to what I have been taught, or to even disagree with what I have been taught. Instead, I was brought up to learn out of the very best books and develop a personal relationship with God. Any counsel I have received or even the worst SS lessons I have endured have all aided and abetted my personal growth by giving me a chance to share with others that which I have learned through my own personal development. The commandments and covenants I have made are simply controls that provide guidance and oft times protection in my pursuit for truth and knowledge, not walls.

I like the point you make here. As I see it, The Church is there as an aide to our living of and progression in The Gospel. That's why it exists, to help us. Simply that. True growth is personal and happens outside The Church context (okay, granted, some of it happens inside that context, but that is not the end all and be all).

This didn't become fully evident to me until I had children. Let's face it folks, whom among us wants to cede the Gospel instruction of our children to Primary or YM/YW instructors? Let me do that, and they can supplement. That way I can root out all the false and faulty doctrine and practice.

My old man says the same thing. He always says that when he is before the judgment seat the one thing he will not be accountable for is not teaching his children the gospel. I guess I have taken that and internalized it myself. I don't want to lean on someone else for truth and light but find it myself. Conversely I don't want others to lean on me, but rather help them discover for themselves eternal truths.

My Responses:
 

Adam and Eve: 5 -nice etiology, but factually incorrect in many ways, mostly due to its reliance on ancient views about the cosmos (eg the firmament).

Cain and Abel: 6 -Another etiology, to explain the origin of the Kenites.

Noah and the Ark: 6 -I don't see how anyone can think this really happened. Probably etiological.

Lot's wife: 5

Plagues: 6

Red Sea: 4, maybe 5.

Jericho: 6

Jonah: 5

Job: 4 mainly because it is one of my favorite books along with Ecclesiastes both examples of "Skeptical wisdom" literature

Daniel: 5

Re: My Responses:
 

These seem pretty close to me; I would adopt them as my own with the following exceptions. Red Sea too high. It's a great story but why we must cast around for natural phenomena to explain something like that is beyond me. I'd give it a 5. Jericho gets a 4, certainly not a 6 in my book. We know the Israelites conquered the Canaanites at some point, right? What evidence is there that the conquest by the Israelites of a Canaanite city named Jericho (by whatever means) is purely fictional? Much of the Bible appears fanciful, but it's the best history we have about much that it covers. Why not just as easily assume that Herodotus' story about the battle of Thermpylae is purely fictional? Claiming there were almost a million Persians attacking the pass is as as patently fanciful as that horn blasts brought down the walls of Jericho.

I agree 100% that Job is one of the finest parts of the the OT, even in the Western Canon.

Re: My Responses:
 

The reason I gave Jericho a 6 is because I believe that the archaeological evidence indicates that the "conquest" was not really a conquest, but more of a gradual infiltration or settlement if you will, of disaffected Canaanites who appropriated the Canaanite God El, and then *possibly* merged at some point with a group which had some connection with Egypt. This contact eventually led to the emergence of YHWH as the national God of Israel. I therefore think that the Jericho story is both nationalistic propaganda, and while the ex post facto rationalization of wholesale slaughter might hint at a historical kernel, I just don't think it has value for me.

As for the Red Sea incident, I think this may reflect a legitimate tradition based on much less dramatic events in the life of a small group of settlers from Egypt. In other words, it didn't happen just like the Bible account, but is based in a highly amplified historical kernel.

These are my opinions, based on how I feel the evidence makes the most sense to me.

CHC.

Re: My Responses:
 

I will defer to you then. Very interesting. In this field you are certainly the master here. Thanks for taking time to enlighten! Glad to see you found this place.

Re: My Responses:
 

You don't have to do that... I'm not a Hebrew Bible expert by any means, though I have taught it some. My main focus as a scholar is on the New Testament and Early Jewish History, which really tends not to include the earliest Hebrew Literary traditions. My knowledge in that area is fairly surface-level. There are plenty of scholarly opinions that would accord with your point of view as well.